Reply
Fri 24 Feb, 2006 10:38 am
I've notice George W's penchant for referring to his government, etc for a long time. He apparently has been taking lessons from Queen Elizabeth, that sterling example of good government leadership.---BBB
W: My Government"
Marty Kaplan
02.23.2006
Here's how W is defending the Dubai decision: "The more people learn about the transaction that has been scrutinized and approved by my government, the more they'll be comforted..."
For a moment, set aside the "trust-me" part of this, and focus instead on the "my government" bit.
If he'd said "my administration," I wouldn't have blinked.
"My cabinet" would also have raised no hackles. If he really wanted to use the word "government," then how about these pronouns as antecedents for "people": "their government" or "our government."
But no, he said "my government." I don't think that's just a garden variety Bushism, a trivial malapropism. I think it goes right to his understanding of who he is, and who we are. It's not a Freudian slip; it's an Orwellian siren, an anti-democratic red alert.
The founding documents of our nation talk about the government, our government, a government, any government. If my is used, it's said on behalf of the citizens, not their rulers.
But W really believes that it's his government. He doesn't see himself as a steward, a trustee, a caretaker, someone who temporarily gets to steer the ship of state because of the momentary consent of the governed and an enduring set of rules. No, he believes it's his ship, his state, his rules -- his and his ideological fellow-travelers.
The heads of some countries with parliamentary systems, like India, sometimes say "my government"; when they do, it means 'my Cabinet," "my temporary ruling colition," "my majority" -- which could fall in an instant, if there were a no-confidence vote.
But in the US, we don't have governments that get made and dissolved year-round; we have Administrations, that get formed every four years.
In the American context, unless it's an ordinary citizen like you or me speaking, let's recognize the expression "my government" as what it really is: a deeply troubling oxymoron, the inappropriate yoking together of a democratic institution and -- well, a moron.
Speaking in the third party "we" or "my" when talking about govt is an old habit of all Presidents.
Clinton did it,Bush 1 did it,REagan,Carter,Ford,Nixon,etc.
They have all done it.
Why are you complaining now?
Mysteryman
mysteryman wrote:Speaking in the third party "we" or "my" when talking about govt is an old habit of all Presidents.
Clinton did it,Bush 1 did it,REagan,Carter,Ford,Nixon,etc.
They have all done it.
Why are you complaining now?
Mysteryman, you are so full of it regarding your knowledge of your government.
BBB
Are you asserting that Bush has violated some law? If so, which one?
Re: Mysteryman
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:mysteryman wrote:Speaking in the third party "we" or "my" when talking about govt is an old habit of all Presidents.
Clinton did it,Bush 1 did it,REagan,Carter,Ford,Nixon,etc.
They have all done it.
Why are you complaining now?
Mysteryman, you are so full of it regarding your knowledge of your government.
BBB

So then tell me,oh knower of all knowledge,exactly how does the govt work?
How does each department and agency work,and what is each agencies function?
If you know all there is to know,then enlighten us mere mortals,if you can.
Even if Bush meant "my" in the most literal sense that you refer to, how could this attitude come as any kind of revelation to you BBB?
Just for the record, third person is "he/she/it/they" not "we/my". Both of those are first person (singular and plural). His administration is only one branch of OUR government. And if he'd respected the legislative branch enough to communicate with them about the UAE port decision, he might not be in the mess he's in now.
FreeDuck wrote:Just for the record, third person is "he/she/it/they" not "we/my". Both of those are first person (singular and plural). His administration is only one branch of OUR government. And if he'd respected the legislative branch enough to communicate with them about the UAE port decision, he might not be in the mess he's in now.
I'll agree that the UAE port decision appears on its surface to be dead wrong.